Light Tanks

[AGRA]

Exactly , and you can not substitute MBT's for it , its something completly different , like comparing a Tomato's vs Apple's

Tomatoes and apples can both be used to make juice. The blender is the same.

What matters is not the vehicle spec sheet but how it is used. If I was to equip an armoured regiment of men with 40 M109 SP artillery guns they would probably equate themselves pretty well simply using the M109s for direct fire (they don’t know how to calculate fire missions and have no command posts or forward observers anyway). The M109 has a gun, protection, mobility; all the ingredients of a tank though not in the same measurements as most other MBTs but has them anyway.

Now take a less extreme example a regiment of Leopard 1s replaced with the Rooikat 105… The unit has lost a degree of vehicle protection but gained a lot of mobility. Since tankers try to avoid getting hit in the first place how is this change in vehicle performance going to effect the unit? Maybe in a battle their loss rate will skyrocket so it will be a failed experiment. Or maybe the enhanced mobility will mean they are often there ‘firstest with the mostest’ and they win all their engagements?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Right now there is approximately 67 that are built. Some are being used in Iraq by the 9th light infantry Division.
Here is some pictures, you will notice that one of them shows a Tow launcher that is starting to be fielded also.

Thanks alot, the turrents have interesting shape much smaller than I percieved in earlier pictures.The TOW Launcher was news to me as well, its very good to see continued Fire support development.
Cheers

 

[riksavage]

Tank designs, whether heavy or light will trade off one of three elements – firepower, armour, mobility. For example the UK tended to go for firepower and protection (Chieftain) the French firepower and mobility (AMX 30). Looking at light-tank / tank destroyer designs today they are leaning heavily towards mobility and firepower utilising lighter wheeled chassis combined with 105mm, and more recently 120mm main guns.

We have witnessed some negative feed-back about wheeled vehicles suffering in Afghanistan (Canadian LAVIII experience: http://www.sfu.ca/casr/ft-leopard-tank.htm). As a result does the forum see a brighter future with tracked light tanks, rather than wheeled variants? The former provides increased speed, less impact on the environment (hearts and minds), lighter weight, ease of maintenance, whilst the latter provides greatly enhanced cross-country capabilities in poor terrain / inclement weather and a lower profile. Also with the introduction of ‘rubber band’ tracks the impact on the environment is greatly reduced, so is the noise.

In todays counter insurgency battles I see a need for a light tank (tracked in my view) with excellent optics (night / day) combined with a duel weapon 40mm + (to deal with light armour / softskin vehicles) and automatic grenade launcher (to deal with infrantry), plus a coax 7.62mm / 50. cal. This type of combination provides more than enough fire-power for an Iraq / Afghanistan scenario coupled with a highly mobile chassis protected to resist the latest generation of RPG. Should a Europena conventional war scenario appear then the same system could be complimented with a AT system (TRIGAT or Javlin)

 

[AGRA]

In todays counter insurgency battles I see a need for a light tank (tracked in my view) with excellent optics (night / day) combined with a duel weapon 40mm + (to deal with light armour / softskin vehicles) and automatic grenade launcher (to deal with infrantry), plus a coax 7.62mm / 50. cal. This type of combination provides more than enough fire-power for an Iraq / Afghanistan scenario coupled with a highly mobile chassis protected to resist the latest generation of RPG. Should a Europena conventional war scenario appear then the same system could be complimented with a AT system (TRIGAT or Javlin)

In terms of the mobility system depends on the track, rubber band tracks offer great potential but we need to see them in service beyond BV206s first. One option is to have a mix, like the Hagglunds SEP, wheeled vehicles for your road patrolling and a squadron of tracked for hill climbing...

In terms of the weapons mix with a 40mm/AGL you don't have a weapon able to take out a bunker. Also you anti-infantry weapon is limited in range to a few hundred meters. The best weapon for today's conflict is a lightweight 76mm automatic gun with a ROF of 60rpm. You can plop a three round burst of HE-FRAG on top of infantry out to 3-4km (or fast moving landrovers), have high angle elevation to take out building tops, fire some nasty APHE to take out bunkers and even APFSD able to knock out a steel armour tank out to 3-4km. Even against a Chobham or Kontact 5 armour tank a three round burst into the turret face is likely to destroy the enemy gun sight optics for a mission kill. Firing the IR fused anti-aircraft ammo you can also knock down high speed attacking aircraft at low altitude.

 

[DavidDCM]

Perhaps I haven’t fully explained what I mean here in relation to 10 vs 40. I used the term concentrate and thought that would be enough. It has nothing to do with overall numbers of logistics but how many vehicles you can manoeuvre in response to the enemy to achieve concentration.

In analysing the effectiveness of light tanks vs MBTs one has to do so from a systems perspective. In particular analysing the difference between the RDF/LT and a LAV based gun platform (like the Stryker MGS) versus the M1 one finds that in conventional open terrain tank vs tank fighting the lighter tanks have a range of advantages. In particular higher mobility allowing the commander to concentrate more force when and where its needed.

Assume you have a US armoured cavalry regiment defending against a Soviet tank division. Once you identify the Soviet axes of advance you concentrate your tanks to meet and engage them. With a formation of M1 tanks you can only concentrate a single company or combat team of tanks but with the faster moving lighter tanks you can concentrate an entire ‘squadron’ or battle group. This provides you the 40 vs 10 advantage.

It is important to note that mobility isn’t just some maximum speed listed in Janes but actual deployable speed of an entire tank company. In this case the light tank has significant advantages over most terrain types than the M1. Helicopter supported light tanks have even more significant mobility advantages. Imagine trying to move a convoy of 20 buses from one town to the next through some back streets and country tracks. Then imagine trying to move a convoy of 20 Smart cars over the same route. Maximum speed may not be very different but the ease in which the smaller cars can formate and manoeuvre gives them a clear advantage.

Well, that's just not exactly what's true. MBT's aren't less mobile than light vehicle in whatever terrain, that's the main mistake in your argumentation. On the contrary, a MBT is the fastest groundvehicle on the battlefield. Whenever I took part in manoeuvres and exercises, nothing could match MBT's, be it IFV, recon tanks, APC's or any other military vehicle driving around in such a scenario. MBT's have to slow themselves down to enable the other vehicles to keep up with them.

It's only strategic mobility where wheeled vehicles have an advantage. For example if you know that the enemy will attack at a location 200 Km away, then you can get you wheeled vehicles there faster by just using the civil streets. A tracked tank fleet, be it MBT or tracked Light Tank, will either need much longer time for a street march or it will be be transported by rail, or any other way to get them there without breaking too many of em down. Anything will take longer time than the wheeled ones street march. But if you talk about tactic mobility, meaning "You're on the wrong side of that hill, get ur asses over here" no one will be faster than a company of MBT's.

And, I ask you bout that, please stop trying to imply that I’m some generic fanboy who has no idea of what’s going on and who’s just reciting some tech specs from books and jane’s. I'm talking only out of my personal experience with modern armoured warfare. I'm not claiming to spread the absolute truth, but the statement that light tanks have a higher tactical mobility on a classic battlefield can be proven wrong by taking part in any armour exercise anywhere on this planet.

(Admin: Before this gets out of hand. Can you and AGRA ensure that this potential imbroglio is restricted to PM's rather than grow within the public forum. There may well be a loss or disconnection in translation between the two of you, so don't let it become a hydra)

 

[Waylander]

@GF-aust
I don't think that this discussion is away from the original topic.
We are talking about light tanks and AGRA brought up the point what kind of advantages light tanks have and DavidDCM and others just counter this in a normal style of civilized discussion.

I find it interesting and it is much less away from topic than many other topics on this board.

Or was your comment purely targeted onto the fanboy issue?

@AGRA
I just can support Davids position. Modern MBTs are far away from being less tactical mobile than other vehicles, especially wheeled vehicles.
I have also never seen that MBTs slowed down any other vehicles but often enough it was vice versa.
David already mentioned the cross country problems encountered by the LAVIIIs in A-stan. And the LAVIII bases on the same chassis like the Stryker(MGS) which is the Swiss Piranha III.
So I don't get how you can go on claiming that tanks have less tactical mobility.
Strategical for sure, when it comes to long road marches. There light wheeled!!! tanks have advantages.

As for your scenario about a Armored Cav Squadron defending with a company against enemy light tanks approaching at their positions.
You might get more light tanks into the battle due to less costs of these vehicles (Even while you need to train more crews which equals the price difference a bit) but those light tanks are going to be eaten up by the defending company.
Light tanks are even vulnerable to the autocannons of IFVs while the other way around you are going to have a hard day with a 105mm and with a 120mm your still have a disadvantage in armor protection.
So while every hit of a light tanks is a nearly 100% kill it is not the same vice versa.

And yeah for sure one wants to evade enemy fire by speed and maneuvering of your tank but there are enough possible situations were you have to rely on your armor and hope for the best.
Attacking enemy tanks and IFVs (With ATGMs) in hull down defensive positions is defenitely sich a situation.

 

[gf0012-aust]

@GF-aust
Or was your comment purely targeted onto the fanboy issue?

yes, purely at the issue of this potentially ending up going "to and fro" between individuals

 

[Waylander]

Ah, ok.
Than forget the rest of my post.

 

[eckherl]

@GF-aust
I don't think that this discussion is away from the original topic.
We are talking about light tanks and AGRA brought up the point what kind of advantages light tanks have and DavidDCM and others just counter this in a normal style of civilized discussion.

I find it interesting and it is much less away from topic than many other topics on this board.

Or was your comment purely targeted onto the fanboy issue?

@AGRA
I just can support Davids position. Modern MBTs are far away from being less tactical mobile than other vehicles, especially wheeled vehicles.
I have also never seen that MBTs slowed down any other vehicles but often enough it was vice versa.
David already mentioned the cross country problems encountered by the LAVIIIs in A-stan. And the LAVIII bases on the same chassis like the Stryker(MGS) which is the Swiss Piranha III.
So I don't get how you can go on claiming that tanks have less tactical mobility.
Strategical for sure, when it comes to long road marches. There light wheeled!!! tanks have advantages.

As for your scenario about a Armored Cav Squadron defending with a company against enemy light tanks approaching at their positions.
You might get more light tanks into the battle due to less costs of these vehicles (Even while you need to train more crews which equals the price difference a bit) but those light tanks are going to be eaten up by the defending company.
Light tanks are even vulnerable to the autocannons of IFVs while the other way around you are going to have a hard day with a 105mm and with a 120mm your still have a disadvantage in armor protection.
So while every hit of a light tanks is a nearly 100% kill it is not the same vice versa.

And yeah for sure one wants to evade enemy fire by speed and maneuvering of your tank but there are enough possible situations were you have to rely on your armor and hope for the best.
Attacking enemy tanks and IFVs (With ATGMs) in hull down defensive positions is defenitely sich a situation.

Very correct Waylander in terms of Cavalry in Squadron and Regiment size actions, also lets point out that these units in the U.S have MBTs for heavy support after contact has been made, Cav scouts are the eyes and ears of divisions and scout vehicles are designed to get a few punches in and get out real fast.

Wheeled vehicles are not your ideal choice when bouncing across the battlefield, on road networks yes, they are quite fast especially getting to small scale urban area`s of operation but they cannot stay on the road forever. Modern MBT`s are quite fast in open terrian and it has been a challenge to get IFV`s to be able to keep up with them. IFV`s are fast but because they are lighter in weight they do not handle the cross country terrian as well as tanks. I have had to slow down on quite a few occasions to ensure that I did not out run my infantry suport.

 

[AGRA]

It's only strategic mobility where wheeled vehicles have an advantage. For example if you know that the enemy will attack at a location 200 Km away, then you can get you wheeled vehicles there faster by just using the civil streets.

Exactly, higher-level tactical mobility (it’s not strategic) is the key issue in battle. Tactical mobility is not just crossing hills but manoeuvre of units and formations up to and beyond Brigade. Troop/Squadron (aka platoon/company) level tactical mobility (crossing hills) may be important to an individual soldier but from a commander’s perspective being able to concentrate force at the right place “firstest with the mostest” is more important. Its far better to go into battle with 40 AFVs on your side than just 10…

In the interest of getting terminology right these are the correct (NATO) expressions for tactical-operational-strategic:

Tactical: individual soldier, fire team, section, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps
Operational: division, corps, army, army group, theatre
Strategic: army, army group, theatre, national leadership, alliance

So tactical mobility is as much the ability to deploy units at distances of several hundred km as it is to fight over terrain for a few hours in contact with the enemy,

And, I ask you bout that, please stop trying to imply that I’m some generic fanboy who has no idea of what’s going on and who’s just reciting some tech specs from books and jane’s.

My apologies if what I said lead to this implication it was not my intention, nor frankly was it in the wording of what I posted… I was trying to point out the difference between an individual vehicle’s performance –as expressed in Janes – and an actual operational performance of a unit made up of commanders, soldiers, combat systems, vehicles, logistics, etc all operating in a worldly environment in the face of an enemy.

Now the opinion I’m expressing here about the superior speed of a formation of light tanks or LAVs, Strykers, FCS, RDF/LT, etc compared to heavy MBTs is not something I’ve made up. It is the product of extensive US Army and Australian Army experimentation and operational experience. The Australian experiments conducted in Janus and heavily supported by 'in the field' experiments showed that LAV equipped formations ripping to shreds MBT (T-80) equipped formations because of their speed of tactical manoeuvre. They achieved far better loss-destroy ratios than rival ORBATS equipped with MBTs (M1s) against MBTs (T-80).

 

[Waylander]

That in a terrain like Australia wheeled vehicle offer more advantages than in other areas on this planet is for sure.
That you are able to relocate LAV units over wast distances is nothing we ever countered.

But going head on against enemy heavy tank units?
Destroying them with what?
Side and rear shots with the 25mm of the scouts and with the Javelins of the dismounted infantry? (How many Javelins are fielded by an australian LAV infantry company?)
Hoping for getting a .50 cal bullet into the direction of the TC?

For sure not in more or less open terrain with countable LOSs.

I would really like to know more about those experiments.

If they showed that LAV units can better react to enemy movements given the terrain and distances in Australia than I don't doubt that they performed better than M1 equipped units.
But when contact is made the enemy is going to eat you even when being outnumbered.
An ASLAV equipped unit realistically just has its Javelins for AT-work and the 25mm against enemy light vehicles.
And this while the enemy has a better mobility (Both with modern MBTs and tracked IFVs), firepower (Some Javelins and 25mm vs. Several 120mm, 25mm and TOWs) and protection (The 25mm is not even able to penetrate a Bradley not to talk of Abrams).

 

[AGRA]

That in a terrain like Australia wheeled vehicle offer more advantages than in other areas on this planet is for sure.
That you are able to relocate LAV units over wast distances is nothing we ever countered.

Australia isn't all flat desert... That part that is isn't even factored into the terrain models. But the LAV force outperformed all others in all (bar one) terrain type from desert to hills, etc. It was only in close terrain like urban areas and jungles that the LD ratios went pear shapped. Because the force isn't able to use its mobility to decide wether to engage or not engage and its lack of armour went against it. Which is why Australia abandoned the all-LAV force concept and ordered the M1 tanks.

But going head on against enemy heavy tank units?
Destroying them with what?

The all-LAV force was not just made up of LAV-25s. It included a Stryker MGS type system with a 105/120 high velocity gun, plus LAV mounted mortars, ATGMs, engineers, etc. Similar to the US Stryker brigade - in fact there is a direct linkage between the results of the Australian A21 experiments and the Strker brigade concept.

 

[Manfred2]

Actualy, a 25mm DP round can penetrate 54mm of armor plate. I think I might have mentioned that before.

I was going to explain how the concept of light tanks was mangled during WW2, but one of those pictures stopped me dead in my tracks. It was the one showing a Stryker with that anti-missle shielding all around it. Those rails, so good for shreding Hollow-charge warheads, would also provide the perfect ladder for enemy infantry.

THe fast that this is no longer a concern tells me how much has changed, and the limits of past examples' usefulness on today's battlefield.

One question- don't you need tracks to qualify as a light "tank"?

 

[eckherl]

Exactly, higher-level tactical mobility (it’s not strategic) is the key issue in battle. Tactical mobility is not just crossing hills but manoeuvre of units and formations up to and beyond Brigade. Troop/Squadron (aka platoon/company) level tactical mobility (crossing hills) may be important to an individual soldier but from a commander’s perspective being able to concentrate force at the right place “firstest with the mostest” is more important. Its far better to go into battle with 40 AFVs on your side than just 10…

In the interest of getting terminology right these are the correct (NATO) expressions for tactical-operational-strategic:

Tactical: individual soldier, fire team, section, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps
Operational: division, corps, army, army group, theatre
Strategic: army, army group, theatre, national leadership, alliance

So tactical mobility is as much the ability to deploy units at distances of several hundred km as it is to fight over terrain for a few hours in contact with the enemy,



My apologies if what I said lead to this implication it was not my intention, nor frankly was it in the wording of what I posted… I was trying to point out the difference between an individual vehicle’s performance –as expressed in Janes – and an actual operational performance of a unit made up of commanders, soldiers, combat systems, vehicles, logistics, etc all operating in a worldly environment in the face of an enemy.

Now the opinion I’m expressing here about the superior speed of a formation of light tanks or LAVs, Strykers, FCS, RDF/LT, etc compared to heavy MBTs is not something I’ve made up. It is the product of extensive US Army and Australian Army experimentation and operational experience. The Australian experiments conducted in Janus and heavily supported by 'in the field' experiments showed that LAV equipped formations ripping to shreds MBT (T-80) equipped formations because of their speed of tactical manoeuvre. They achieved far better loss-destroy ratios than rival ORBATS equipped with MBTs (M1s) against MBTs (T-80).

In what type of setting are you referring to, I have been involved in going up against light units for this very purpose to see how well they will perform in a combat environment that involves heavy forces, if you believe in hit and run tactics then yes they will do just fine in certain combat settings, going up against a sizable force with all assetts that can be brought up against you the answer is no, you have to move to keep from being destroyed. We have come out with vehicles like M8 AGS and have tested them to a disappointment that they do not have the endurance to stay in constant contact with a sizable enemy opponent armed with modern tanks. In a cross country dash over uneven ground a T-90 or T-80 will run down a Stryker. We thought that we had it right with the M8 AGS, we tested it and we were about ready to hand them over to the 82nd Airborne Div to replace the Sheridans when we realized that they were already out dated and did not bring any parity to a gun fight against modern MBTs.

Here is some pictures of my countries attempts with light tanks, we did manage to sell the Army of Thailand some Stingrays.

 

[riksavage]

“The Australian experiments conducted in Janus and heavily supported by 'in the field' experiments showed that LAV equipped formations ripping to shreds MBT (T-80) equipped formations because of their speed of tactical maneuver. They achieved far better loss-destroy ratios than rival ORBATS equipped with MBTs (M1s) against MBTs (T-80).”

AGRA - Could you clarify this statement – Are you claiming Australians at Janus where able to go up against a T80 equipped ‘red-team’, or was this a theoretical exercise (TEWT) or even better conducted on a modern battle-group simulator? The reason I ask is Australia of all the western nations has had historically the least experience in planning for, or dealing with a massed Soviet style tank threat when compared to countries, which used to train to fight in Western Europe during the height of the Cold War on a daily basis. I have to say very few nations (Germany, US, UK for example) advocated the use of wheeled tank destroyers or LAV equivalents against MBT formations. If they did why where they not present in large numbers manning Fulda gap?

Please correct me if I’m wrong!

 

[AGRA]

Well I’m not talking about doing this in the 1950s… one of the key issues is command and control. The A21 experiments and the Stryker/FCS type forces are not designed to fight over voice radio with map in hand, but utilising modern C4ISR systems. This gives extraordinary vision to the commander and ability to control their forces.

As long as the west maintains air superiority – and it’s not under any real threat for the foreseeable future – and stays in open terrain (ie outside of cities) they can smash heavy tank forces with light tanks.

Of course the spanner in these works is that enemies are staying in the city. However in designing your modern western combat force you won’t need heavy tanks to take on T80s but rather heavy close combat vehicles to support infantry in the cities and a high speed, lighter armoured tank system to destroy the enemy heavy tanks in the open.

 

[AGRA]

Are you claiming Australians at Janus where able to go up against a T80 equipped ‘red-team’, or was this a theoretical exercise (TEWT) or even better conducted on a modern battle-group simulator?

Yes and destroy them convincinly. Janus and other physics based simualtions were used informed with data established in decades of NATO field exercises and actual combat plus several specific ones for A21.

The reason I ask is Australia of all the western nations has had historically the least experience in planning for, or dealing with a massed Soviet style tank threat when compared to countries, which used to train to fight in Western Europe during the height of the Cold War on a daily basis. I have to say very few nations (Germany, US, UK for example) advocated the use of wheeled tank destroyers or LAV equivalents against MBT formations. If they did why where they not present in large numbers manning Fulda gap?

Yeah nice one... unfortunately we didn't conduct the A21 experiments in the context of the Cold War, with Cold War level technologies. It was done in the late 1990s, early 2000s. Also the US and UK replicated the same type of experiments with the same results.

 

[Waylander]

The I strike were I want argument works well when you have much space to play with.
Once you have areas and objects to defend as well as restricted space you get problems.
Or when you have to get the enemy out of its defensive positions.

Once you get contact with the enemy all technical advantages are on the side of the heavy brigade.
Lets assume that both sides are equally trained and possess the same advantages in terms of battlefield management systems and netcentric warfare assets.

The only advantage of the lighter forces are better mobility over big distances, better bridge crossing ability (But deep forging and bridgelayers equal that a bit) and less operating costs.

The heavy force has better cross country performance, is usually better armored, much more firepower and a much better artillery support.
Your light mortar carriers are screwed when they have to operate against advanced enemy heavy SPHs. The counterfire capability is just heavily unbalanced in favor of the heavy brigades artillery bn.

And space is not only restricted by the terrain but by many other factors like important objects and areas in need to stay defended or captured, size of land you are able to trade to the enemy for room to maneuver, or numbers of enemy and friendly troops in the area.

For sure when having a big area of operations in which two lonely brigades (One heavy and one light) fighting each other gives the light brigade the chance to dance around the heavy one.
Once this freedom is taken you have to face the problems coming with a light force.

Edit: naah, I am slow.
Many new posts before ich finished mine...

 

[riksavage]

What if the enemy has a capable C4ISR system and you don’t have air superiority, just parity?

I see a strong case for LAV type vehicles for use in the armed reconnaissance role and flanking actions, but they will never replace the MBT for the simple fact that there is still no better vehicle available for holding ground, particularly in a defensive action correctly supported by the rest of a modern battle-group.

 

[Waylander]

The question for C4ISR is exactly the right one.

Nothing stops heavier forces from using the same C4ISR assets like light forces.

For sure it works against a heavy opponent without modern netcentric warfare equipment.
But the right question has already been raised.
What if the enemy heavy forces has such equipment?